The issue is that you are trying to argue that because some people that you don't agree with use a certain argument, that I need to subscribe to it also.

I have done nothing of the kind.

Quote:

So, when you achieve complete consensus that Atheism Is a Religion in GTRI, I'll go with your argument.

My position is that atheism is not a religion, but you'll go with my argument when everyone agrees it's a religion?

That makes no sense whatsoever. I suppose it could mean that you're tacitly admitting that you're arguing that atheism is a religion simple because you want to be oppositional, and if everyone agreed with you you'd pick the other position. Would you like to clarify?

Quote:

Cherry picking from the courts finding is no better than cherry picking from any other opinion you don't agree with that is not mine.

I'm not cherry picking. The Supreme Court ruled that freedom of religion requires that non-belief (which includes agnosticism, by the way, even by the definition you use) be afforded the same First Amendment protections as belief. Therefore, courts use a definition of "religious" that includes non-belief. That is different than saying non-belief is religious in the way a lay person uses the word 'religious'.

Quote:

In the nicest way I can say it, when you want to debate, debate with the fellow you are conversing with, not some other guy you heard about once upon a time......

Well, apparently you're just some guy I heard about once upon a time, and not the person I was attempting to converse with.

Unless you didn't actually post what you posted?

__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Point is, because some theists have made an argument, I should not be held to their reasoning (or lack thereof)

I'm not holding you to the reasoning of some random theists. I'm holding you to your statement about a court ruling, and attempting to explain why your claim that I am using the same logic is in fact INCORRECT.

See, I didn't claim that some guys over here said one thing and those guys over there said another, and that they all have to say the same thing.

I claimed that the *same* guys said one thing here and the *same* guys said another there.

Do you get it?

__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

There is a rich, deep kind of irony that must be shared. Iím blogging this from the Apple store in the Mall of America, because Iím too amused to want to wait until I get back to my hotel room.

I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried Ö but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird ó I was standing in line, hadnít even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasnít going to cause any trouble.

I went back to my family and talked with them for a while, and then the officer came back with a theater manager, and I was told that not only wasnít I allowed in, but I had to leave the premises immediately. Like right that instant.

I complied.

Iím still laughing though. You donít know how hilarious this is. Not only is it the extreme hypocrisy of being expelled from their Expelled movie, but thereís another layer of amusement. Deep, belly laugh funny. Yeah, Iíd be rolling around on the floor right now, if I werenít so dang dignified.

You see Ö well, have you ever heard of a sabot? Itís a kind of sleeve or lightweight carrier used to surround a piece of munition fired from a gun. It isnít the actually load intended to strike the target, but may even be discarded as it leaves the barrel.

Iím a kind of sabot right now.

They singled me out and evicted me, but they didnít notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didnít recognize him. My guest was Ö

I'm not holding you to the reasoning of some random theists. I'm holding you to your statement about a court ruling, and attempting to explain why your claim that I am using the same logic is in fact INCORRECT.

See, I didn't claim that some guys over here said one thing and those guys over there said another, and that they all have to say the same thing.

I claimed that the *same* guys said one thing here and the *same* guys said another there.

Do you get it?

You are trying to be slippery, but it's not working.

Funny, but somehow lame in the same way. Try going back to post 51, and then slowly reading from there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

ID is simply another claim about how life began. Yes, there are some theists that argue that ID is a scientific claim. If that seals the deal, lets use that same logic in another way.

There are no less than two atheist churches, is atheism a religion? Can we finally agree on that and put that little tiny issue behind us?
A court ruled that atheism was a person's religion, and that it was deserving of the same protections.

Same logic. Some over here use this argument, so you must use it too.

I wasn't a judge on that court, but I did ask you to use the same arguments and logic, and acquiesce to the same conclusions they came to, in the same way you were trying to get me to do with someone else's arguments.

And we haven't even touched on the fact that the arguments you wish me to take responsibility for are those of theists. I aren't one [sic]. If I was going to be accurate, I would be asking you why you think it's OK to kill innocent New Yorkers by flying planes into their building.

Take several steps back, and try to approach this debate in an honest manner.

Point is, because some theists have made an argument, I should not be held to their reasoning (or lack thereof), any more than all atheists should have to agree that atheism is a religion because it has a church, or a legal finding in that direction, or an agnostic that realizes that it's true.....

Either way, I will not hold him responsible for the arguments of others, and am asking him do show me the same courtesy, or get all of the atheists to admit atheism is a religion, whichever happens first, I'm OK with it.

I think you mean believes, with adore and faith.

__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Ardor, not adore. I believe I don't know exactly how the universe happened, and life on earth happened.

I'm pretty sure about that. If some want to consider that a religion, I'm cool with that. Funny how I don't get the same indifference in return. It's almost like those guys are uncomfortable or something.

I have no problem with schools *not* teaching non-belief under the same principle that would have courts and government treat non-belief as being protected by the First Amendment, legally defining it to be treated as a religion.

The Discovery Institute supported the teaching of ID in schools, when that was being litigated, on the basis that it is science, not religion. They also supported the plaintiff in this lawsuit, which required that this guy be fired because of his belief in ID, and that firing be religious discrimination.

Me: "Fine, treat athiesm as a religion for legal purposes, you get the right result even though it's not actually a religion as known by a lay person - both in the case where you don't teach it in school, and in the case where attempting to prevent someone from not believing restricts their ability to believe or not believe as their conscience dictates"

The Discovery Institute: "We want ID to be treated as not a religious concept by the courts when that would allow a wins in this lawsuit here, but we want it to be treated as a religious concept by the courts when that would allow a win in that lawsuit there"

So explain to me how I am using the same logic in both places again? I don't want it one way here and one way there - I am fine with atheism being treated as religious for first amendment purposes both with regard to preventing having it taught in school, and preventing discrimination against people merely because they don't believe.

That can't be said of the Discovery Institute and ID - they want to say it's not religion when it comes to teaching it in schools, but that it *is* religion when it comes to a claim (which turned out to be false) that some guy was fired because he believed it.

It is quite simply not the same logic. It is non-contradiction vs. contradiction. Applying the logic the Discovery Institute is using, it would be perfectly acceptable for a science textbook to state 'There is no God' - and that is actually an incorrect result, any public school attempting to use such a science textbook would get sued and *lose*.

__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

I have no problem with schools *not* teaching non-belief under the same principle that would have courts and government treat non-belief as being protected by the First Amendment, legally defining it to be treated as a religion.

The Discovery Institute supported the teaching of ID in schools, when that was being litigated, on the basis that it is science, not religion. They also supported the plaintiff in this lawsuit, which required that this guy be fired because of his belief in ID, and that firing be religious discrimination.

Me: "Fine, treat athiesm as a religion for legal purposes, you get the right result even though it's not actually a religion as known by a lay person - both in the case where you don't teach it in school, and in the case where attempting to prevent someone from not believing restricts their ability to believe or not believe as their conscience dictates"

The Discovery Institute: "We want ID to be treated as not a religious concept by the courts when that would allow a wins in this lawsuit here, but we want it to be treated as a religious concept by the courts when that would allow a win in that lawsuit there"

So explain to me how I am using the same logic in both places again? I don't want it one way here and one way there - I am fine with atheism being treated as religious for first amendment purposes both with regard to preventing having it taught in school, and preventing discrimination against people merely because they don't believe.

That can't be said of the Discovery Institute and ID - they want to say it's not religion when it comes to teaching it in schools, but that it *is* religion when it comes to a claim (which turned out to be false) that some guy was fired because he believed it.

It is quite simply not the same logic. It is non-contradiction vs. contradiction. Applying the logic the Discovery Institute is using, it would be perfectly acceptable for a science textbook to state 'There is no God' - and that is actually an incorrect result, any public school attempting to use such a science textbook would get sued and *lose*.

You completely missed the point. The fact is that ID, Creationism, it just sorta happened, extraterrestrial sources, are all just unsupported theories.

Yeah, there are some people that believe there is convincing evidence for one or more of those theories. I have kids. I balance what my kids hear at school with reality. I discussed today, with my 17 year old that MLK was not a Democrat for a good reason. Democrats fought against civil rights for African Americans. There are recently retired prominent members of the Dem party (Byrd) that were very prominent members of the KKK also. There is a rather infamous LBJ quote that uses the N-word, and how they can get them to vote Democrat. ďIíll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.Ē Lyndon Baines Johnson about the Great Society plan.

A well known democrat swore on a bible above MLK's travel bible today. It's sad about how much that guy had to ignore to think that was appropriate.

If you watched any of that factual information on the news today, I missed it.

A balanced, non-biased, non-agenda driven approach is best in public schools. Even if that means acknowledging it is possible that life on Earth was designed.

__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

You completely missed the point. The fact is that ID, Creationism, it just sorta happened, extraterrestrial sources, are all just unsupported theories.

None of those actually rise to the level of theory, as the term is actually used in science (as opposed to the 'well it's just a theory' usage which, while is actually a valid definition, is *not* the definition in use when talking of a 'scientific theory').

And you are, unsurprisingly, yet again avoiding the point, and are off somewhere pretending that we were talking about something else all along.

You claimed that I was somehow using the same logic myself that the DI people are using when they try to have it both ways. Or something along those lines, you weren't necessarily making a whole lot of sense to me at the time.

Given that I am not in fact using the same logic (I am not in fact contradicting myself in the way they are), are you going to continue to claim things like

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

If that seals the deal, lets use that same logic in another way.

and

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

So, if you are going to argue that I should agree with everyone that does not agree with you, and use the same arguments, would you mind getting back to me just as soon as you inform all of the GTRI participants that the issue is settled, and that they must submit to the opinion that Atheism is a Religion.

When I neither made such an argument, nor hold the same contradictory position as the Discovery Institute people are holding?

Or can you simply admit that the Discovery Institute people are contradicting themselves as to whether or not ID is religious, given that they have supported different lawsuits that require it be treated as such in one lawsuit, and *not* treated as such in another?

__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

None of those actually rise to the level of theory, as the term is actually used in science (as opposed to the 'well it's just a theory' usage which, while is actually a valid definition, is *not* the definition in use when talking of a 'scientific theory').

And you are, unsurprisingly, yet again avoiding the point, and are off somewhere pretending that we were talking about something else all along.

You claimed that I was somehow using the same logic myself that the DI people are using when they try to have it both ways. Or something along those lines, you weren't necessarily making a whole lot of sense to me at the time.

Given that I am not in fact using the same logic (I am not in fact contradicting myself in the way they are), are you going to continue to claim things like

and

When I neither made such an argument, nor hold the same contradictory position as the Discovery Institute people are holding?

Or can you simply admit that the Discovery Institute people are contradicting themselves as to whether or not ID is religious, given that they have supported different lawsuits that require it be treated as such in one lawsuit, and *not* treated as such in another?

You are changing the subject again. If I am going to be held to the arguments of theists, as an agnostic, you are supposed to be agreeing that atheism is a religion.

You're either being obtuse, or are really oblivious to the logical fallacy you are attempting.

You are changing the subject again. If I am going to be held to the arguments of theists, as an agnostic, you are supposed to be agreeing that atheism is a religion.

I am not changing the subject again. *You* are changing the subject again. My initial point was to state that DI is contradicting itself as to whether or not ID should legally be treated as religious - you responded with some claim that I was somehow using the same logic/arguments.

You had the choice to just simply admit that, yeah, DI is contradicting itself. Instead you tried to argue that I was somehow using the same logic they are, and *you* brought in the different subject with that claim and a bunch of talk about me having to get RI to agree that atheism is a religion, which is completely ridiculous.

If you're going to pretend that I'm just being obtuse, rather than trying to get you to plainly admit that DI is contradicting itself on whether or not ID should be treated as religious in courts of law (which you have not yet done - you've merely stated something along the lines of 'some theists say it's a scientific claim', while pretending I'm somehow holding you to their contradiction), while *also* getting you to admit that I have never made a likewise contradictory claim that *anything* should be treated as religious by the courts in one case, but not religious in others, then there's really no point in talking to you, is there?

To be clear: I am not saying you are making the same argument they are, nor am I trying to hold you to their argument.

I am saying *your statement that I am somehow using the same argument they are is flat out incorrect*. They claimed that ID should be differently treated, by courts, based on whether or not the suit they wanted to win would win on a particular interpretation. *YOU* claimed I was making the same argument, as far as I can tell. I am not holding you to *their* argument, I am holding you to *YOUR* claim.

So please quote where I have *ever* stated or implied that *anything* should be treated as religious by a court in one context, and not religious by a court in another context. That is the contradiction DI is committing. If you cannot provide such a statement, then your claim that I am somehow using the same arguments they are fails.

Please also quote where I have ever stated that you hold the same position as DI - you will not be able to, as I never said any such thing. I merely stated that you were missing the point, when your response actually missed the point that DI was contradicting itself.

__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

I am not changing the subject again. *You* are changing the subject again. My initial point was to state that DI is contradicting itself as to whether or not ID should legally be treated as religious - you responded with some claim that I was somehow using the same logic/arguments.

You had the choice to just simply admit that, yeah, DI is contradicting itself. Instead you tried to argue that I was somehow using the same logic they are, and *you* brought in the different subject with that claim and a bunch of talk about me having to get RI to agree that atheism is a religion, which is completely ridiculous.

If you're going to pretend that I'm just being obtuse, rather than trying to get you to plainly admit that DI is contradicting itself on whether or not ID should be treated as religious in courts of law (which you have not yet done - you've merely stated something along the lines of 'some theists say it's a scientific claim', while pretending I'm somehow holding you to their contradiction), while *also* getting you to admit that I have never made a likewise contradictory claim that *anything* should be treated as religious by the courts in one case, but not religious in others, then there's really no point in talking to you, is there?

To be clear: I am not saying you are making the same argument they are, nor am I trying to hold you to their argument.

I am saying *your statement that I am somehow using the same argument they are is flat out incorrect*. They claimed that ID should be differently treated, by courts, based on whether or not the suit they wanted to win would win on a particular interpretation. *YOU* claimed I was making the same argument, as far as I can tell. I am not holding you to *their* argument, I am holding you to *YOUR* claim.

So please quote where I have *ever* stated or implied that *anything* should be treated as religious by a court in one context, and not religious by a court in another context. That is the contradiction DI is committing. If you cannot provide such a statement, then your claim that I am somehow using the same arguments they are fails.

Please also quote where I have ever stated that you hold the same position as DI - you will not be able to, as I never said any such thing. I merely stated that you were missing the point, when your response actually missed the point that DI was contradicting itself.

That's what he does. He tries to turn your argument into something it isn't and then attacks you and sometimes your intelligence for making it. It's intellectually dishonest cowardice. I don't think I've ever seen him actually debate what's actually being discussed. It's often some off shoot non-topic he's manufactured. You won't get anywhere talking to him. It's just the nature of the beast.

It's far better to talk around him and just not acknowledge him. But he will follow you around everywhere you go pissing his pants hoping you'll engage him.

Welcome to RI. You're new here, obviously... How do you like our pet troll?

He looks really cute:

But do NOT feed him after midnight.

This is the guy that claims Merriam-Webster's definition of religion proves atheism is a religion, including the part that specifically calls atheism an antonym of religion. His troll-fu is strong. His shameless disingenuous streak is legendary.

No, they don't. From your link: The First Church of Atheism was born out of necessity. Created by Paul and Jacki McMaster, the FCA is the first society of its kind. Dedicated solely to ordaining atheists so that they too may perform ceremonies previously performed by religious men.

__________________
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."